PRO12 has new Managing Director and he isn't Irish :D :yahoo:

First topic message reminder :

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Or maybe, just maybe everyone decided to pitch their hat into the ring and see what happened

Are all teams eligible?

Well considering they were all asked to tender for it that would mean they were

Marty, because the criteria has never been made public, none of us will never know.

Sure if we had facts then we wouldn't have these conspiracy theories. Where would be the fun in that?

Come on Steff. I'd have thought with your educated mind, you could do better than personal attacks. Evidently not.

From your neck of the woods, I wouldn't belittle anybody with a job. But I can assure you, I do a lot more than play a clampett Tom Cruise in Cocktail or serving Big Macs.

You can talk about Ponty all you want. Start your own thread, or post on a semi pro thread where it's relevant. Posting on Pro 12 threads that aren't relevant to you and that you have no interest in is nonsensical. I'm sure an educated man like yourself can get his head round that.

Also, I'd recommend you take the further education offer. Might do you good to escape your village mentality, if you saw there is a big world outside of Ponty Hills.

Risca Rev wrote:Might do you good to escape your village mentality, if you saw there is a big world outside of Ponty Hills.

As someone who has traveled to many countries in this world (probably more than you) and even worked abroad for short periods of time I find this comment quite laughable

Stone Motif wrote:With this difficulty you clearly have distinguishing between the concepts of 'one' and 'many',you must be the guy in charge of counting attendance at Conty matches

True...although I don't have much trouble counting the amount of posts you have done on here recently...

Has anyone started a thread criticising World Rugby yet over their choice of officials?

I noticed last week during the Canada and Romania game Marius Mitrea was one of the ARs, anyone know where he is from?

Maybe they let the Pro12 pick the officials for that game since World Rugby would never do such a thing and only the Pro12 would

Well spotted Marty, Mitrea is indeed from Romania although employed by the FIR.

VinceWLB wrote:Well spotted Marty, Mitrea is indeed from Romania although employed by the FIR.

Just thought it highlighted how wrong some of the arguments on here were, JP Doyle also reffed France and Canada which could have impacted on Ireland

I didn't see Mitreas performance just spotted him in the highlights so he could have had a stinker or done well but just as well it wasn't Wales they were playing or there'd have been a few heads exploding

The Welsh trolls on here who show up us decent supporters seem to have gone quiet recently. Maybe they have all been abducted by aliens to never return to earth...now wouldn't that be nice

They'd probably either blame the Irish officials or Ponty rugby fans as well

Steff or quite possibly their tired of constantly being told to prove every word they say is true, when others can post tosh freely without ever needing to prove any facts.

marty2086 wrote:Has anyone started a thread criticising World Rugby yet over their choice of officials?

I noticed last week during the Canada and Romania game Marius Mitrea was one of the ARs, anyone know where he is from?

Maybe they let the Pro12 pick the officials for that game since World Rugby would never do such a thing and only the Pro12 would

Or things like a South African ref getting to chose who his team play in the qfs (p.s. this is not necessarily my opinion)

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Steff or quite possibly their tired of constantly being told to prove every word they say is true, when others can post tosh freely without ever needing to prove any facts.

When people use phrases to like its true or Im just presenting the facts when presenting their opinions you mean?

Thinking of that. Have you came up with the proof Chunky asked you for yet?

Oh of the facts to back up your facts that Phil was after?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Thinking of that.  Have you came up with the proof Chunky asked you for yet?

It was provided and he dismissed it and asked for it again and rather than go back a page in the thread to look it at kept asking for it

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Oh of the facts to back up your facts that Phil was after?

And which facts were those?

Funding for the MS. Anyhow, personally I don't give a fig, just pointing out why the 'trolls', as Steff put it, may well have given up on here.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Funding for the MS.  Anyhow, personally I don't give a fig, just pointing out why the 'trolls', as Steff put it, may well have given up on here.

I did provide that the problem was the Arms Park part of it though if I remember correctly

To be fair to Steff there are some who get on like trolls and dismiss things they don't like and believe that because they believe it its true despite evidence to the contrary

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Funding for the MS.  Anyhow, personally I don't give a fig, just pointing out why the 'trolls', as Steff put it, may well have given up on here.

I did provide that the problem was the Arms Park part of it though if I remember correctly

Actual proven facts and figures, with reputable sources and links, watertight enough to be held up as hard facts in court?

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Funding for the MS.  Anyhow, personally I don't give a fig, just pointing out why the 'trolls', as Steff put it, may well have given up on here.

I did provide that the problem was the Arms Park part of it though if I remember correctly

To be fair to Steff there are some who get on like trolls and dismiss things they don't like and believe that because they believe it its true despite evidence to the contrary

Ah replied before the second part of your post was up....

I totally agree with that second part. There are a fair few on here that do that, and from all sides of any argument too

Well it seems the debate has died now, I just wanted to highlight that what some claimed wouldn't happen outside the Pro12 did and no one batted an eye

marty2086 wrote:Well it seems the debate has died now, I just wanted to highlight that what some claimed wouldn't happen outside the Pro12 did and no one batted an eye

I did. But technically the argument was Pro12 refs get away with officiating their own nations, and now the Pro12 refs have even done it at international level, which proves they are crooked FACT

Steffan wrote:The Welsh trolls on here who show up us decent supporters seem to have gone quiet recently. Maybe they have all been abducted by aliens to never return to earth...now wouldn't that be nice

They'd probably either blame the Irish officials or Ponty rugby fans as well

Sofia Vergara (AKA Phil) is busy over on Munsterfans banging on about Nigel Owens favouring Ireland.

Nigel should come over here and become an IRFU ref. He's not appreciated in his own homeland. They show him no love at all

If he became an IRFU ref he could then ref Welsh International games. They'd then start to re-love him as he'd love how they play.

Sin é wrote:

Steffan wrote:The Welsh trolls on here who show up us decent supporters seem to have gone quiet recently. Maybe they have all been abducted by aliens to never return to earth...now wouldn't that be nice

They'd probably either blame the Irish officials or Ponty rugby fans as well

Sofia Vergara (AKA Phil) is busy over on Munsterfans banging on about Nigel Owens favouring Ireland.

Nigel is Welsh, and here is the reason he could have shown favouritism to Ireland against France.

Nigel favoured Ireland, because he knew that the loser would face NZ, and the winner of that would be in the SF should Wales make it. Seeing as France are more of a threat to NZ than Ireland (not sure how but France seem to love NZ in the RWC), that means that by helping Ireland win Nigel actually improved Wales' chances of winning the RWC by avoiding NZ (possibly).

SecretFly wrote:Nigel should come over here and become an IRFU ref.  He's not appreciated in his own homeland.  They show him no love at all

If he became an IRFU ref he could then ref Welsh International games.  They'd then start to re-love him as he'd love how they play.

Some of those Welsh (Gwlad) lads actually hate Nigel because they think he likes Ireland!

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Nigel should come over here and become an IRFU ref.  He's not appreciated in his own homeland.  They show him no love at all

If he became an IRFU ref he could then ref Welsh International games.  They'd then start to re-love him as he'd love how they play.

Some of those Welsh (Gwlad) lads actually hate Nigel because they think he likes Ireland!

Why wouldn't he like Ireland? Sure everybody loves the Irish!

Nathan Hines seems to be a tin hatted conspiracy crackpot too, after commenting on the banning of Ford and Gray.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34510438

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Nathan Hines seems to be a tin hatted conspiracy crackpot too, after commenting on the banning of Ford and Gray.  

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34510438

I hadn't read the judgement but adding a week to deter specific types of foul play? That's moronic surely the ban itself is meant to do that?

Marty, your not interested in his comment regarding Australian involvement in the process or neutrality then?

Here it is from the previously linked article



The citing commissioner involved in the case is Australian and one journalist asked Hines whether he was concerned at that given Scotland face Australia at the weekend.

"He is neutral isn't he?" he said. "He's very professional. He's there to do a job and he thinks he's seen something.

"World Rugby put him there because they are happy with his neutrality."



Seeing as when people say things like that on here they get hounded and labelled trolls etc, Hines should be given the same treatment surely. Or does it have more credibility being said by someone in an official capacity then it does when said by now public?

I'd have to have heard it, it could have been tongue in cheek or he could have been posing the question as a serious issue but the approach taken by the board seems mad

Do we really think the Wallabies see Scotland as a threat?

marty2086 wrote:I'd have to have heard it, it could have been tongue in cheek or he could have been posing the question as a serious issue but the approach taken by the board seems mad

Do we really think the Wallabies see Scotland as a threat?

Surely given the track record on hear there should be outcries if Troll and a witch hunt to make him give up being seen in public.

Why should there be? Like I said we don't know how he meant it

In the past on here there were serious accusations made that the Pro12 was rigged in favour of the Irish for a list of reasons that made no sense hence why certain posters were asked to put up or shut up

If any poster dares to say anything about the standard of officiating or has the nerve to use the word neutrality on here there are a host of posters swooping down upon them screaming out that they are trolls, conspiracy theorists etc. That is the standard. So then claiming that there should not be the same reaction for a Chunky-esque comment from Nathan Hines is the polar opposite to the standard. It is complete and utter double standards, but I have a feeling you know that deep down and just don't want to admit it.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:If any poster dares to say anything about the standard of officiating or has the nerve to use the word neutrality on here there are a host of posters swooping down upon them screaming out that they are trolls, conspiracy theorists etc.  That is the standard.  So then claiming that there should not be the same reaction for a Chunky-esque comment from Nathan Hines is the polar opposite to the standard.  It is complete and utter double standards, but I have a feeling you know that deep down and just don't want to admit it.

Bull! For one nearly every poster has said the officiating standards aren't up to scratch, what is swooped down on is the suggestion that the IRFU are rigging the Pro12 in favour of the Irish because the provinces are branches of the union and refs belong to the IRFU.

As I have said Hines comments on paper can be interpreted a number of ways so its not double standards, if he's being serious then he's a fool because the of them are lucky they will be playing this side of Xmas

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:If any poster dares to say anything about the standard of officiating or has the nerve to use the word neutrality on here there are a host of posters swooping down upon them screaming out that they are trolls, conspiracy theorists etc.  That is the standard.  So then claiming that there should not be the same reaction for a Chunky-esque comment from Nathan Hines is the polar opposite to the standard.  It is complete and utter double standards, but I have a feeling you know that deep down and just don't want to admit it.

Bull! For one nearly every poster has said the officiating standards aren't up to scratch, what is swooped down on is the suggestion that the IRFU are rigging the Pro12 in favour of the Irish because the provinces are branches of the union and refs belong to the IRFU.

As I have said Hines comments on paper can be interpreted a number of ways so its not double standards, if he's being serious then he's a fool because the of them are lucky they will be playing this side of Xmas

First off, the moment neutrality is raised (like Hines has done) there is always a backlash, if you can not admit to that then there is something wrong.

Second, what is the difference between the Hines quote being in writing and anything written on here? It is in text format and therefore the tone of the comment is not clear, and perceived by the readier.

marty2086 wrote: Pro12 in favour of the Irish because the provinces are branches of the union and refs belong to the IRFU.

So you are now admitting it then ? The Irish refs, and the Irish provinces are all employed by the same organisation.

The Australian citing commissioner had nothing to do with the suspensions. All a citing commissioner does is refer them to a disciplinary committee to make a judgement.

If the citing commissioner was making spurious claims, the Independent Disciplinary Committee would just dismiss what he proposed and probably just cross him off their list for further usage as an official.

There are checks and balances.

Firstly, I have said I don't know how he intended his comments so how can I respond to it without the context?

Secondly, the difference is it wasn't him writing it and on here we know what is intended at times because clarification is asked for. Chunky for example has been quite clear he loathes the Pro12, wants rid of it and can never accept it

Thirdly I have said if he was serious hes a fool because everyone got off lightly yesterday

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote: Pro12 in favour of the Irish because the provinces are branches of the union and refs belong to the IRFU.

So you are now admitting it then ? The Irish refs, and the Irish provinces are all employed by the same organisation.

Marty ?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote: Pro12 in favour of the Irish because the provinces are branches of the union and refs belong to the IRFU.

So you are now admitting it then ? The Irish refs, and the Irish provinces are all employed by the same organisation.

LD, seriously I am not going round in that circle again

The refs belong to the IRFU as per World Rugby, yes Peter Fitzgibbons works for them as a development officer, do they pay them to ref in the Pro12? Who the knows but you assume they do, I'll ask why would they and we'll avoid the hassle, deal?

LordDowlais wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote: Pro12 in favour of the Irish because the provinces are branches of the union and refs belong to the IRFU.

So you are now admitting it then ? The Irish refs, and the Irish provinces are all employed by the same organisation.

Marty ?

So is this new SOP? You don't get a response within 10 secs you'll keep reposting?

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote: Pro12 in favour of the Irish because the provinces are branches of the union and refs belong to the IRFU.

So you are now admitting it then ? The Irish refs, and the Irish provinces are all employed by the same organisation.

LD, seriously I am not going round in that circle again

The refs belong to the IRFU as per World Rugby, yes Peter Fitzgibbons works for them as a development officer, do they pay them to ref in the Pro12? Who the    knows but you assume they do, I'll ask why would they and we'll avoid the hassle, deal?

LD?

marty2086 wrote:Firstly, I have said I don't know how he intended his comments so how can I respond to it without the context?

Secondly, the difference is it wasn't him writing it and on here we know what is intended at times because clarification is asked for. Chunky for example has been quite clear he loathes the Pro12, wants rid of it and can never accept it

Thirdly I have said if he was serious hes a fool because everyone got off lightly yesterday

Nice dodge of admitting that the first question of neutrality is met with outcries form most quarters

As for your Thirdly (or should that be tertiary, serious question btw not just being a pendant), saying someone is a fool is far from saying they are a Troll.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote: Pro12 in favour of the Irish because the provinces are branches of the union and refs belong to the IRFU.

So you are now admitting it then ? The Irish refs, and the Irish provinces are all employed by the same organisation.

Marty ?

So is this new SOP? You don't get a response within 10 secs you'll keep reposting?

I hope not, this place would descend to just a stream of poster names over tea and lunch break

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote: Pro12 in favour of the Irish because the provinces are branches of the union and refs belong to the IRFU.

So you are now admitting it then ? The Irish refs, and the Irish provinces are all employed by the same organisation.

LD, seriously I am not going round in that circle again

The refs belong to the IRFU as per World Rugby, yes Peter Fitzgibbons works for them as a development officer, do they pay them to ref in the Pro12? Who the    knows but you assume they do, I'll ask why would they and we'll avoid the hassle, deal?

You have admitted, that the Irish refs and the Irish provinces are employed by the same organisation, as I have quoted you above. You are now reverting back to type by backtracking and going around the houses about world rugby.

This seems to be the theme on here though, the Irish mafia on V2 get picked up on something and get called out, then they start accusing people of being tin hatted and paranoid conspiracy theorists.

If as you say, and I quote " the provinces are branches of the union and refs belong to the IRFU." Then there MUST be a conflict of interest in the Pro12.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote: Pro12 in favour of the Irish because the provinces are branches of the union and refs belong to the IRFU.

So you are now admitting it then ? The Irish refs, and the Irish provinces are all employed by the same organisation.

LD, seriously I am not going round in that circle again

The refs belong to the IRFU as per World Rugby, yes Peter Fitzgibbons works for them as a development officer, do they pay them to ref in the Pro12? Who the    knows but you assume they do, I'll ask why would they and we'll avoid the hassle, deal?

You have admitted, that the Irish refs and the Irish provinces are employed by the same organisation, as I have quoted you above. You are now reverting back to type by backtracking and going around the houses about world rugby.

This seems to be the theme on here though, the Irish mafia on V2 get picked up on something and get called out, then they start accusing people of being tin hatted and paranoid conspiracy theorists.

If as you say, and I quote " the provinces are branches of the union and refs belong to the IRFU." Then there MUST be a conflict of interest in the Pro12.

Ah don't forget that someone like Nathan Hines can make a comment that is so Chunky-esque about the neutrality of the citing commission, and it is treated totally differently. If he were called a tin hatted crackpot, at least there would be some sort of uniformity, however the fact it is swept to the side just adds tot he general double standards that are rife on here.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Firstly, I have said I don't know how he intended his comments so how can I respond to it without the context?

Secondly, the difference is it wasn't him writing it and on here we know what is intended at times because clarification is asked for. Chunky for example has been quite clear he loathes the Pro12, wants rid of it and can never accept it

Thirdly I have said if he was serious hes a fool because everyone got off lightly yesterday

Nice dodge of admitting that the first question of neutrality is met with outcries form most quarters

As for your Thirdly (or should that be tertiary, serious question btw not just being a pendant), saying someone is a fool is far from saying they are a Troll.

It'd only be tertiary if firstly was primary surely?

Actually I was being polite about Hines hes a guy I cant take to

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Firstly, I have said I don't know how he intended his comments so how can I respond to it without the context?

Secondly, the difference is it wasn't him writing it and on here we know what is intended at times because clarification is asked for. Chunky for example has been quite clear he loathes the Pro12, wants rid of it and can never accept it

Thirdly I have said if he was serious hes a fool because everyone got off lightly yesterday

Nice dodge of admitting that the first question of neutrality is met with outcries form most quarters

As for your Thirdly (or should that be tertiary, serious question btw not just being a pendant), saying someone is a fool is far from saying they are a Troll.

It'd only be tertiary if firstly was primary surely?

Actually I was being polite about Hines hes a guy I cant take to

Primarily, thank you for that. Like I said it is one of those things that just never looks right, yet tertiary just looks like someone trying to be a ponce with big words.

As for the Hines thing, to be honest it doesn't really matter. It is a bit like you bringing up Mitrea being the man in the middle of a Romania game, trying to highlight that some issues that get people really hot under the collar seem to get ignored when not in the v2 Irish/Welsh/Pro12 bitch-fest.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote: Pro12 in favour of the Irish because the provinces are branches of the union and refs belong to the IRFU.

So you are now admitting it then ? The Irish refs, and the Irish provinces are all employed by the same organisation.

LD, seriously I am not going round in that circle again

The refs belong to the IRFU as per World Rugby, yes Peter Fitzgibbons works for them as a development officer, do they pay them to ref in the Pro12? Who the    knows but you assume they do, I'll ask why would they and we'll avoid the hassle, deal?

You have admitted, that the Irish refs and the Irish provinces are employed by the same organisation, as I have quoted you above. You are now reverting back to type by backtracking and going around the houses about world rugby.

This seems to be the theme on here though, the Irish mafia on V2 get picked up on something and get called out, then they start accusing people of being tin hatted and paranoid conspiracy theorists.

If as you say, and I quote " the provinces are branches of the union and refs belong to the IRFU." Then there MUST be a conflict of interest in the Pro12.

I have said that if you change the word belong with employ

I'll repeat this once for old times sake, so read slowly and let it sink in

Referees have to be associated with a Union, thems the rules!

If you have a complaint I'll get you World Rugbys address you can write a strongly worded letter/email for them

Are the referees paid by the IRFU to work in the Pro12?

marty2086 wrote:Referees have to be associated with a Union, thems the rules!

Yes but the teams they referee should be independent, in Ireland they are not. This is where the conflict of interest comes in.

The Pro12 will never improve because the Irish do not want to alter anything, the system suits them, and how the league is run because of it suits them, there are a few things I would like to see brought into the Pro12 to make it better.

1. Neutral refs.
2. Salary Cap.
3. Stricter over seas/non qualified players.
4. Independent teams with no affiliation with the referees.

This would never happen though as the Irish would never agree to it.